>socialism is a by product of the advancement of science and technology you absolute fucking retard But it's not? Lmao what the fuck are you talking about?
>>muh government funding >dude do you think a liberal government is funding automation to get people out of work and introduce universal credit or do you think universal credit will be a byproduct of automation? if the former then you need to fucking neck asap Another strawman, nice.
>oof there it is >I guess I just assumed you had the IQ needed to understand these concepts and the basic underlying knowledge but you clearly don't >Re-read my posts and learn from them instead of crying when I call you retarded for being retarded >Man I gotta stop giving people on the internet the benefit of the doubt All I'm reading is: >no u dum dum not me
In the west those institutions are still largely private and work on the basis of the profit they they earn from the government giving them money (through funding or by just being a customer). Still a very much capitalist system.
Very different from a country owning them and just having workers receive a salary from the government.
Brayden Davis
>another strawman what are you talking about? that's a perfect example of how a socialist policy will be brought forth not only because of the new moral framework of modern science but literally by science you genuine spastic, please, please try to refute this >but it's not? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A METAPHYSICAL MUTATION IS I AM NOT TALKING PURELY ABOUT SOCIALISM IN A TEXT BOOK SENSE I AM USING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A BRAND NEW ERA CONCEIVED BY MODERN SCIENCE THAT WE ARE LITERALLY TRANSITIONING INTO AS WE SPEAK
DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT CONTEXT IS??? ARE YOU SUDDENLY GONNA BRING UP MEDIEVAL SCIENCE BECAUSE I MENTIONED THE WORD SCIENCE????
Matthew Collins
>Of course it wouldn't be a problem with an unlimited connection If the connection was unlimited it would be oversaturated and slow as fuck. And this is why 5G is a gimmick propagated by ISPs ignoring proper fibre infrastructure because that's too expensive to build.
Joshua Lewis
>what are you talking about? It's a strawman because I never argued against it, but you're saying that as a response to what I said.
>that's a perfect example of how a socialist policy will be brought forth not only because of the new moral framework of modern science but literally by science I agree with this. If that's what you were talking about from the beginning, then yes, you're right.
But you never mentioned this until now, and only talked about socialism being a consequence of this thing you call "modern science" in the general sense, which is what I'm disagreeing on. On specific cases like this, it can be true, sure.
>DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A METAPHYSICAL MUTATION IS >I AM NOT TALKING PURELY ABOUT SOCIALISM IN A TEXT BOOK SENSE I AM USING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A BRAND NEW ERA CONCEIVED BY MODERN SCIENCE THAT WE ARE LITERALLY TRANSITIONING INTO AS WE SPEAK You're being too vague, and I have to assume the context that you're not giving me, because you're not using the words in the way they're generally meant, but you're using them as your own "slang" definition of concepts that aren't normally referred to in this way. This is the same way /x/ schizos speak, and it's impossible to understand your point this way. I hope you realize that.
>DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT CONTEXT IS??? ARE YOU SUDDENLY GONNA BRING UP MEDIEVAL SCIENCE BECAUSE I MENTIONED THE WORD SCIENCE???? Yes, and you're saying things that would make sense in a different context, but don't in this one because you keep being too vague and using strawmen and weird examples that portray a different point than what you're making.
Ethan James
you only think the things I say are vague because you're not equipped enough for this conversation >But you never mentioned this until now, and only talked about socialism being a consequence of this thing you call "modern science" in the general sense, which is what I'm disagreeing on. oof, why didn't you just tell me right at the start to clarify the terms I used because you had no idea what they meant? if you genuinely asked me to educate you on the subject instead of arguing with me out of ignorance then you could have stopped me from repeating myself 5 times >I agree with this. thanks? this is common knowledge, I don't see how you could disagree with it unless you were well informed which this nice little sentence here proves you are >Yes, and you're saying things that would make sense in a different context, but don't in this one because you keep being too vague and using strawmen and weird examples that portray a different point than what you're making. honestly mate you're out of your depth here and it's pretty embarrassing
Ethan Torres
>you only think the things I say are vague because you're not equipped enough for this conversation No you literally switch from talking about it in a philosophical way to mentioning specific examples as an argument against me talking about it in the general way you were previously talking in.
>oof, why didn't you just tell me right at the start to clarify the terms I used because you had no idea what they meant? Please show me where "modern science" is used to mean "the era which are we moving into in which our the major moral framework which we adhere to is the one set by the rapid advancements in science that cannot exist at the same time as the christian moral framework".
>if you genuinely asked me to educate you on the subject instead of arguing with me out of ignorance then you could have stopped me from repeating myself 5 times I don't think you understand what's going on here. You think I'm arguing against what you said, but I'm arguing against what your vague posts had made me think you said. You were thinking about specific policies from the beginning but you've never mentioned them until now, and only referenced the general idea behind them, which is what I responded "not in all cases, only if X happens" to.
>thanks? >this is common knowledge Yes.
>I don't see how you could disagree with it unless you were well informed which this nice little sentence here proves you are Well, good thing I'm not disagreeing with it.
>honestly mate you're out of your depth here and it's pretty embarrassing Every schizo I've talked to says the same thing. I can talk with experts on every subject I know nothing about, and I always understand them clearly because they speak in a normal way. You didn't. You speak like someone who's way too much into some ideology or religion and are repeating vague ideas and moving the discussion left and right instead of getting to the point.
Sebastian Morris
The fact is Communism can only be achieved after great human suffering and millions being killed. No Communist has ever explained to me why capitalism is so bad that we should fight a civil war and kill everyone who won't obey the Communist regime.
Isn't the main argument for Communism that under capitalism, workers have no economic freedom because their bosses own the factory or business and take more of the profit than any individual workers? The workers can still choose to not work or to sell their own goods. Under capitalism a worker can sell their labor on a job by job basis. A painter can be independent and set up his own jobs. Under communism this is impossible because the independent painter would be considered a capitalist even though they are in control of their own means of production. The worker is more free under capitalism. Under communism everyone who doesn't follow the system is jailed or killed. To say communism benefits the worker is a lie. At least under capitalism an individual can choose not to work and since the dawn of the industrial revolution there have always been charities or soup kitchens of some degree. A Communist system where those who choose not to work are given the same degree of wealth as those who do work denies the worker of even more of their own production.
Communists are almost always the college educated elite who already have it better than the low skill or blue collar worker. They pretend to have the worker's best interests in mind so they can feel better about themselves. They want the state to take control so they will no longer feel guilt when people are poorer than them or envy those more wealthy than them. The Communists who rise up to lead the movements are those who have the greatest drive for power. Communism is an all powerful state where individual freedom is denied and the people in charge are cut from the same cloth as those with enough of a drive for power as those in charge of capitalist systems.
Mason Thomas
you're clearly very uneducated on the subject of both philosophy and politics which is where I fucked up, I shouldn't have assumed you had done the same research I have so lets start from the top >1) we live in a transitory time >2) we're transitioning from the era of Christianity (a Judaeo-Abrahamic religion to a new era >3) the era is loosely defined as the era of modern science >4) the metaphysical mutation (defined by google as the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space but in layman's terms and in this context means something intangible but tangible) which is causing this new era to appear is science the same way Christianity sprung up and took down the roman era >5) when we stop believing in God and therefore the morals that come with the ethical framework of christianity (ethical framework is defined by google as a set of codes that an individual uses to guide his or her behavior i.e the ten commandments) because science makes more "sense" to the majority then we will be in a new era, the era of "modern science" (modern being important here the same way medieval would be important if we were discussing the first phase of the christian era entirely) >6) a by product of morality changing on a grand scale and adhering to a new framework is a change in policy >9) this does not mean that people with this new framework are "victims" of a dichotomy that will not exist in the future as this dichotomy exists *now* because we are in the process of, as a society (a majority) switching to a new ethical and moral framework which has caused a clash >10) just because people *now* hold the same beliefs as the majority will hold does not make them "leftist" zealots or bowing to the whim of a "liberal zeitgeist" does not mean you conflate this new era with "leftists" >11) which leads me to my previous example of universal credit anything else to explain?
